What is Misdemeanor Manslaughter?
Misdemeanor manslaughter is, very simply put, the unlawful and unintended killing of another person due to a misdemeanor. The model penal code defines it as: "a person is guilty of a misdemeanor manslaughter if he kills another human being…in the course of or attempt to commit a misdemeanor." For example, in Mississippi, to prove the charge of misdemeanor manslaughter, the prosecution must prove the following: (1) a killing (2) occurred by culpable negligence or during the commission of an unlawful act not amounting to a felony (2) and the defendant did not intend to kill as a result of his actions . The charge is a misdemeanor in Mississippi, with the maximum sentence being up to one year incarceration in the county jail. There is no death penalty for misdemeanor manslaughter, but there is a fine that may be assessed.
The misdemeanor manslaughter rule rests on the idea that killing without premeditation is not a crime – or is less of a crime, with less serious punishment – than killing with premeditation even if the motive was less serious or "unworthy". The homicide law thus punishes people who cause deaths not only because they are negligent, foolish, or reckless enough to cause a death but also when they kill while do something less blameworthy than the commission of a malicious wrong.
Historical Context and Evolution
The misdemeanor manslaughter rule is a common law principle of criminal law that has its roots in early English law. Historically, it was believed that a person who unintentionally killed another during the commission of an unlawful act could be charged and convicted of involuntary manslaughter. The underlying theory was that the perpetrator should face some level of punishment for their involvement in an unlawful act that, despite lacking intent to kill, nevertheless resulted in the death of another.
Over time and through different jurisdictions, the scope of the misdemeanor manslaughter rule has been adjusted and interpreted in various ways. In the early 20th century, the Model Penal Code was developed by the American Law Institute and adopted, although not verbatim, by many states. § 210.3(3) of the Model Penal Code provides for liability of criminal homicide when "he causes the death of another human being negligently."
Under the Model Penal Code, recklessness is viewed as conscious disregard of a substantial and unjustifiable risk. In this way, the MPC eliminated the requirement that the underlying offense or crime be a felony or a "misdemeanor that does not itself amount to a gross deviation from the standard of care which a reasonable person would observe in the actor’s situation" as was found in Commonwealth v. Monahan, 433 Pa. 32, 249 A.2d 404 (1969).
Many jurisdictions have followed the Model Penal Code in eliminating the requirement that the underlying offense or "misdemeanor" be something more than a minor offense. However, some jurisdictions have retained the requirement in the element of "unintentional killing committed during commission of a misdemeanor." Thus, there is a split among the jurisdictions.
Many jurisdictions that have an intermediate attack have adopted a broader standard than the one proposed by the Model Penal Code. Some courts including Thomas v. State, 283 Ga. App. 578, 642 S.E.2d 377 (2007) define a misdemeanor for purposes of the misdemeanor manslaughter rule "as an unlawful act which is not a felony ‘but which may generally be regarded as being of a less serious nature than a felony.’" (citing State v. Crenshaw, 70 Iowa 70, 30 N.W. 1, 3 (1988)).
Other jurisdictions such as the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania recognize the division of a misdemeanor into two classes: summary offenses and misdemeanors. Commonwealth v. Thompson, 537 Pa. 271, 643 A.2d 19 (1994). In Pennsylvania a summary offense is not considered a misdemeanor.
Legal Definition and Scope
As with most rules, there are criteria that must be met before a charge can be levied. In the case of a misdemeanor manslaughter rule, each state has legally defined misdemeanors which fall under the rule, such as what types of conduct meet the basic elements of an unlawful act. Some misdemeanors that are typically cited as meeting the criteria for manslaughter charges include DUI (driving under the influence), theft of property, drug sales and illegal entry into a confined area. Drug sales or a DUI charge are the most common triggers for the misdemeanor manslaughter rule to be applied. What constitutes a misdemeanor varies from state to state, but certain types of alcohol related misdemeanors (e.g., drunk driving, public intoxication) are likely to result in a misdemeanor manslaughter charge.
It’s important to note that not speaking up about criminal acts occurring in one’s presence is not grounds for a misdemeanor manslaughter charge. Failing to intervene or call the police is not the same as acting improperly or unlawfully. The rule literally applies to conduct that has a high likelihood of causing harm.
That said, reasonable people sometimes do virtually the same thing but with different outcomes. A DUI incident can lead to manslaughter charges if someone dies and charges might be brought against a citizen who jumps into action to save a dog being tormented by a group of teenagers. Every case is different, but to be protected it’s essential to understand what misdemeanors can trigger the rule and what actions may result in charges.
Significant Case Law and Examples
A key case in this area was the 1985 New Jersey Supreme Court decision in State v. Atkinson, 108 N.J. 691. In Atkinson, the defendant, found by the trial court to be guilty of aggravated assault in the first degree, was convicted of "manslaughter arising from the very same conduct." Id. at 699. In reversing the manslaughter verdict, the Court reaffirmed the finding of aggravated assault and ruled that an intentional or knowing killing is more serious than an aggravated assault. Atkinson also establishes that receipt of sexual advances from a victim does not constitute adequate provocation but rather is "a grave social ill." Id. at 704. In this case, the Appellate Division was careful to preserve the manslaughter conviction because of the jury’s obligation to convict the defendant of the "least culpable" charge. Id. at 706.
The 1970 New Jersey Supreme Court considered the relationship between a misdemeanor and a homicide charge in State v. Connors, 54 N.J. 310. In Connors, a 19-year-old decedent had lured the 16-year-old defendant into a motel room where his companions allegedly raped her. The defendant eventually returned to the room and shot his best friend, an act done with a conscious disregard and willful indifference to the value of human life. Decedent Connors was shot in the back. Connors was charged with murder, but the jury acquitted him of murder and manslaughter, instead finding him guilty of aggravated manslaughter. Noting the charge of aggravated manslaughter (the same as second-degree manslaughter under the modern murder statute), Chief Justice Weintraub found the jury’s actions "inexplicable," explaining that aggravated manslaughter involves "a reckless killing which is committed knowingly, recklessly or unduly when provocation, although insufficient to excuse, was a factor in producing the death." Id. at 319-20. In repudiating the notion that a lesser-included offense must be considered guilt of a higher crime, the Court in Connors stated that "[a] place existed within the manslaughter statute for aggravated manslaughter and the Legislature presumably found good reason" for designating the crime as such. Id. at 323.
Controversies and Criticisms
Criticism and controversy has surrounded the misdemeanor manslaughter rule for decades. Critics argue that the harsh punishment for what is, in essence, an unintentional killing due to the commission of a relatively minor crime, is disproportionate to the crime itself. While the Washington Supreme Court in State v. Henderson, 20 Wash.2d 415, 418-421, 148 P.2d 648 (1944) stated that "it is a well settled rule that a homicide, committed by some act directly resulting from a misdemeanor, without a criminal intent, may be murder . . . under the rule where a homicide is committed inadvertently in the course of a lawful act, the homicide constitutes murder if the act which unquestionably caused the death is such as to indicate a wantonness or disregard of human life . . . but the case must be such as to present the element of recklessness, not simple negligence" (emphasis added), Washington courts failed to differentiate between simple negligence and recklessness. Several have condemned this failure. Commenting on the Court’s Upton decision, Justice Wright opined that "[t]he fallacy in this approach is that a person engaging in a slight act of negligence is virtually certain to kill someone when the act occurred hundreds of times without a single death. The ‘wantonness’ is not in the commission of the precipitating misdemeanor, but in the ultimate consequence of the act thousands of times unchecked by injury or serious harm." State v. Upton, 83 Wn.2d 555, 566, 519 P.2d 970 (1974) (Wright, J., dissenting). Emphasizing the lack of correlation between the misdemeanor crime and the end result, Justice Wright concluded that "[t]hose who commit crimes need not live in circumstances of constant peril to others. It is the criminal act itself which represents a wantonness or disregard of human life which is sufficient to make that crime murder." Id. at 570.
Justice Rosellini also condemned the Court’s failure, writing in his dissent in Upton, that "[t]he concept of dividing homicide cases into two categories, ‘wantonness’ and ‘recklessness,’ is not only an attempt to avoid the blatant incongruity involved in the classification of homicide as murder on the basis of negligent violations of minor laws by relatively innocent offenders, but also introduces a classification scheme which is without either scientific or practical justification . " Id. at 572-73.
Academics argue that the misdemeanor manslaughter rule unduly broadens the scope of the felony-murder rule, which was designed to deter dangerous felons from committing potentially lethal acts during the commission of dangerous felonies, not to create liability for conduct that arguably was not dangerous. They argue that it encourages police to over-enforce minor laws to convict potential criminals of felony murder or misdemeanor manslaughter.
Grade A misdemeanors have been criticized as the USDA "gives judges and lawyers discretion to place misdemeanor manslaughter charges onto persons whose crime was not serious enough to earn them a felony charge, lest they have to establish intent in order to make the government punish them and not just their spouse/parent." Huffington Post. According to Mary Fan at the University of Washington School of Law in Seattle: "Minor and non-violent crimes can produce devastating effects, often disproportionately impacting marginalized persons and communities…the misdemeanor manslaughter rule’s default death penalty for all misdemeanors takes an incredibly harsh approach to dealing with those who commit crimes that our society has chosen to view as relatively minor." Huffington Post.
Professor Andrea D. Lyon argues that the rule is "an affront to the Constitution and its conception of due process . . . it treats no distinctions among the various misdemeanors people commit. A wobbler paid a hundred-dollar fine for petty theft is treated equally to a killer who left a bloody crime scene." Huffington Post. Professor Lyon encourages reconstituting the rule to reflect the specific conduct underlying the charged offense.
With so much controversy, several states have reformed their laws or moved to abolish the misdemeanor manslaughter rule entirely. New York, for example, debated abolishing the rule as recently as 1995, but failed, despite the overwhelming support of the New York City Bar Association.
Related Concepts in Law
The misdemeanor manslaughter rule is distinct from other related legal concepts. Involuntary manslaughter is considered an intermediate state of homicide in most jurisdictions—a charge applied to a person who causes the death of another without premeditation but with criminal negligence. For example, if a person discharges a firearm in a crowded place and accidently kills someone, that person may be charged with involuntary manslaughter. Involuntary manslaughter typically results in imprisonment for several years, as opposed to misdemeanor manslaughter, which may result in simple fines, community service, house arrest, or a short prison sentence.
Other than the misdemeanor manslaughter rule, felony manslaughter is the lowest charge on the homicide scale. It is typically applied when a person who is committing a felony incidentally causes the death of another via inadvertent conduct. For example, a person who commits assault and accidentally kills another may be charged with felony manslaughter. Felony manslaughter may result in significantly more time in prison than misdemeanor manslaughter or involuntary manslaughter.
While misdemeanor manslaughter applies to unintentional deaths, second degree murder and first degree murder are generally considered intentional or premeditated killing. Courts typically view them as not related to the misdemeanor manslaughter rule, as they intentionally involved actions that led to the death of another person. Second degree murder is an intermediate crime more serious than involuntary manslaughter, which involves a person who intentionally causes the death of another. First degree murder is the most serious crime. It involves a premeditated decision to kill another individual.
Key Takeaways and Implications
Looking ahead, the future of the misdemeanor manslaughter rule is uncertain. There is an increasing awareness and activism around the "elastic" character of felony murder laws, a label that can be applied to misdemeanor manslaughter in its ability to take an otherwise innocuous act and continue to punish it as a serious crime. Legislators in several states are responding to this with laws that would eliminate the misdemeanor manslaughter rule. These changes have yet to be implemented, so it remains unclear how they will affect future cases.
Proponents of the new laws are quick to argue that, while the current state of the law often leads to harsh outcomes, this is not necessary . Alternatives exist, including the removal of "murder" from sentencing enhancement statutes to prohibit the imposition of significant prison times like life without parole. In their minds, these changes would maintain the severity of a homicide charge and hold those accused responsible, but avoid giving them a designation of murderer.
Whichever way lawmakers choose to settle on the issue, it is clear that changes are on the way. Legal proceedings around the misdemeanor manslaughter rule should be closely monitored because precedent-setting cases out of Virginia and other locations could have an effect on future decisions and strategies. As legislators reexamine the idea of punishment in relation to misdemeanor manslaughter, defense attorneys should be well prepared, knowing that judges will review these cases closely.